SPIDERNET:
The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506
Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.
Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.
Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.
Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.
The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)
Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).
Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.
A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.
The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"
Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".
Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".
Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)
The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.
In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)
On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''
There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
NEEDLEPOINT: They need honour & Education, not alms of reservation
Spidernet
They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.
But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.
Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.
This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.
Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise
There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.
Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.
No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.
In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.
Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?
The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.
Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***
They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.
But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.
Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.
This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.
Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise
There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.
Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.
No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.
In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.
Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?
The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.
Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Needlepoint: Right to Information; Arrogance to Deny it
Needlepoint
The Right to information
The Arrogance to deny it
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 910
On April 24 in all his wisdom and authority Rajya Sabha Chairman Mr. Hamid Ansari invoked, for the first time after 1989, Rule 255 and named Mr. V. Maitreyan of the AIADMK for disorderly behaviour and asked him to leave the House.
The provocation for the Chairman’s order was the member’s persistent demand for a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was present in the House, to the charge that Union Surface Transport Minister Mr T.R. Baalu sought a favour for his sons’ firms in allocation of gas and that the Prime Minister had recommended his case.
The Chairman disallowed his plea and asked him not to disrupt the proceedings. However, Mr. Maitreyan continued to press for a “clarification” by the Prime Minister. At this stage, Mr. Ansari warned him that he would invoke Rule 255, observing that “this disorderly behaviour was unbecoming of a parliamentarian.” When an agitated Mr. Maitreyan remained adamant, Mr. Ansari said he was invoking the rule.
There are no two opinions on the righteousness of the Hon’ble Chairman’s directions. An MP is expected to behave and submit to the directions of the chair in all humility in the interest of decorum in a house.
It is none of anybody’s business to comment upon what happens within the precincts of a house. Yet, as a free citizen – above all, a responsible voter – of this great country and democracy, it is equally his inalienable right to keep a close watch on what right or wrong is going on in the two houses of Parliament and to ponder over dispassionately, when, what, why and how did it happen.
Two basic questions do arise in the mind. Does an honourable MP not have a right to seek clarification or reaction of a minister or prime minister on any matter of public importance in which the name of a minister or PM may have been rightly or wrongly been dragged? Is it not the duty and responsibility of a minister concerned to satisfy the curiosity of the member – and through him and Parliament, of the general public – of the facts of the case?
It is right that no member can expect – and force – a minister or government into instantly and there and then making a statement without first referring to records and verifying facts. But in this age of fast means of communications promising to do so next day or day after should not be construed as meaning something like asking for the moon. That would only have soothed the frayed tempers and sent out a clear message that there is no intention to hide facts.
The greatest tragedy of our system of democracy is that rights and duties don’t go hand in hand; these are neither inter-linked nor inter-dependent. In the Westminster style of parliamentary system of government, an honourable MP or minister does have the right to reply immediately if his name is referred to by any other member in the house. But, it is not the duty – and, on the contrary, it is his sole discretion -- to respond or not if any allegation, howsoever serious it may be, against a member or minister.
In democracy, no person/minister, howsoever high, has the right – and don't forget the Right to Information Act – to withhold facts – unless, of course, it involves the security of the country, which is not true in the instant case – from the house because he/she is answerable, accountable and responsible to Parliament and the people.
Till the time this piece has been sent, neither the right of the House – and through it, of the people – to know the reality has been respected nor has the government discharged its duty to lay the facts bare. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs does have given an assurance that government will look into it and respond but, at the same time, without specifying when.
When the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha on April 25, saying that the members expected some understanding from the Chair of their intentions and feelings, and that there were many situations which could be resolved without invoking any penal provisions of the rules of the House, the Chairman Mr. Ansari said, “In fact none was punished or castigated. All that had happened was that in pursuant to the rule of the House, the attention of the member was drawn to that and he complied”.
Rule 255: “The Chairman may direct any member, whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Council, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.”
It clearly means that the Hon’ble Chairman invoked this Rule only after “in his opinion, Mr. Maitreyan’s conduct was “grossly disorderly" and, therefore, ordered him "to withdraw immediately from the Council". The concerned MP "so ordered to withdraw" did so forthwith and did "absent himself during the remainder of (that) today's meeting".
Earlier the Rule was invoked in 1989 in a slightly different context and situation. A member had physically prevented another member from asking a supplementary question. When the chair asked the recalcitrant MP to tender an apology to the House for this "grossly disorderly" conduct and the latter refused to comply, the provisions of the Rule were applied.
The people of the country do have the right – and the duty – to draw their own conclusion, right or wrong. They certainly will. ***
The Right to information
The Arrogance to deny it
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 910
On April 24 in all his wisdom and authority Rajya Sabha Chairman Mr. Hamid Ansari invoked, for the first time after 1989, Rule 255 and named Mr. V. Maitreyan of the AIADMK for disorderly behaviour and asked him to leave the House.
The provocation for the Chairman’s order was the member’s persistent demand for a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was present in the House, to the charge that Union Surface Transport Minister Mr T.R. Baalu sought a favour for his sons’ firms in allocation of gas and that the Prime Minister had recommended his case.
The Chairman disallowed his plea and asked him not to disrupt the proceedings. However, Mr. Maitreyan continued to press for a “clarification” by the Prime Minister. At this stage, Mr. Ansari warned him that he would invoke Rule 255, observing that “this disorderly behaviour was unbecoming of a parliamentarian.” When an agitated Mr. Maitreyan remained adamant, Mr. Ansari said he was invoking the rule.
There are no two opinions on the righteousness of the Hon’ble Chairman’s directions. An MP is expected to behave and submit to the directions of the chair in all humility in the interest of decorum in a house.
It is none of anybody’s business to comment upon what happens within the precincts of a house. Yet, as a free citizen – above all, a responsible voter – of this great country and democracy, it is equally his inalienable right to keep a close watch on what right or wrong is going on in the two houses of Parliament and to ponder over dispassionately, when, what, why and how did it happen.
Two basic questions do arise in the mind. Does an honourable MP not have a right to seek clarification or reaction of a minister or prime minister on any matter of public importance in which the name of a minister or PM may have been rightly or wrongly been dragged? Is it not the duty and responsibility of a minister concerned to satisfy the curiosity of the member – and through him and Parliament, of the general public – of the facts of the case?
It is right that no member can expect – and force – a minister or government into instantly and there and then making a statement without first referring to records and verifying facts. But in this age of fast means of communications promising to do so next day or day after should not be construed as meaning something like asking for the moon. That would only have soothed the frayed tempers and sent out a clear message that there is no intention to hide facts.
The greatest tragedy of our system of democracy is that rights and duties don’t go hand in hand; these are neither inter-linked nor inter-dependent. In the Westminster style of parliamentary system of government, an honourable MP or minister does have the right to reply immediately if his name is referred to by any other member in the house. But, it is not the duty – and, on the contrary, it is his sole discretion -- to respond or not if any allegation, howsoever serious it may be, against a member or minister.
In democracy, no person/minister, howsoever high, has the right – and don't forget the Right to Information Act – to withhold facts – unless, of course, it involves the security of the country, which is not true in the instant case – from the house because he/she is answerable, accountable and responsible to Parliament and the people.
Till the time this piece has been sent, neither the right of the House – and through it, of the people – to know the reality has been respected nor has the government discharged its duty to lay the facts bare. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs does have given an assurance that government will look into it and respond but, at the same time, without specifying when.
When the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha on April 25, saying that the members expected some understanding from the Chair of their intentions and feelings, and that there were many situations which could be resolved without invoking any penal provisions of the rules of the House, the Chairman Mr. Ansari said, “In fact none was punished or castigated. All that had happened was that in pursuant to the rule of the House, the attention of the member was drawn to that and he complied”.
Rule 255: “The Chairman may direct any member, whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Council, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.”
It clearly means that the Hon’ble Chairman invoked this Rule only after “in his opinion, Mr. Maitreyan’s conduct was “grossly disorderly" and, therefore, ordered him "to withdraw immediately from the Council". The concerned MP "so ordered to withdraw" did so forthwith and did "absent himself during the remainder of (that) today's meeting".
Earlier the Rule was invoked in 1989 in a slightly different context and situation. A member had physically prevented another member from asking a supplementary question. When the chair asked the recalcitrant MP to tender an apology to the House for this "grossly disorderly" conduct and the latter refused to comply, the provisions of the Rule were applied.
The people of the country do have the right – and the duty – to draw their own conclusion, right or wrong. They certainly will. ***
M F Hussain: Myth of his Innocence; Truth of his wrongs
MF Hussain
Myth of his innocence
Reality of his wrongs
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Words: 700
On April 7 the Indian Express published an interview with famous artist Satish Gujaral in which he said that Mr. M. F. Hussain's exile "makes me ashamed of my own culture…the mob culture" and that" we have made such a great man live abroad."
Such utterances just confuse the people evading the real issue. These deprive the people from having a comprehensive and indepth look at the issues involved from every angle. We do drum about "our culture" but ignore that it also that teaches us to introspect on our own conduct before raising an accusing finger on the other. It is the same very "culture" that teaches us only to respect and not to offend others' sentiments. Mr. Gujaral seems to be ignoring "our culture" when he calls Mr Hussain "a great man" who has the audacity to injure, without provocation, the sentiments of crores of his countrymen.
If Mr. Hussain, as he and his supporters claim, has not done anything wrong then why is he afraid of returning to his country? Never has any government declined to provide him adequate security. But it will be expecting to much if they expect the government to grant him blanket immunity from any criminal offence he may or may not have committed. No government worth its name can do that in a democracy. He seems to be afraid to return because of a sense of guilt created by his own deeds and not because of "our culture". Everybody knows that to hurt somebody’s or some section of society’s faith and religious sentiments is an offence -- criminal, social and ethical. If one poses to be brave to stand by his commitments and principles, he should equally be bold to face the consequences.
Neither Mr. Hussain himself nor his protagonists explain why has he availed himself of his democratic right to freedom of expression only with Hindu goddesses and not taken the same liberty with holy men of his own creed?
If “he is a prime target precisely because he is a Muslim”, as some allege, then it can, inversely, also mean that he exercised his license with Hindu gods and goddesses “precisely because he is a Muslim”. Had the liberal and ‘secular’ Mr. Hussain painted in the same fashion somebody belonging to his own religion, or put the caption as “My Mother Durga”, or “My Mother Saraswati” or “My Mother Bharatmata” on the nude photographs, perhaps, he would have blunt the sharpness of the tongue and logic of his critics and detractors.
Mr. Hussain is, no doubt, a great painter but, at the same time, we have yet to know of a great painter, like him, who has painted his mother in the nude.
It is great human weakness and reality that everybody wishes to flirt with or throw amorous glances over someone else’s wife, sister and mother. One wishes to draw vicarious pleasure by seeing them in the nude. But when it comes to our own wife, mother or sister, we would wish to gouge the eyes of the culprit; it could lead to a scuffle and a murder even.
Arundhati Roys, Nandita Dasses, and a horde of well-known writers and artists/artistes throng the streets in support of Mr. Hussain's freedom. Yet, they have never publicly declared that they would appreciate with the same sense of glee and pride their own or of any member of their own family's nude paintings by a ‘great’ artist like Mr. Hussain. They need to do that, otherwise they will only stand exposed as hypocrites who have one standard for others and quite the opposite for themselves.
Do we need to remind what "our culture….mob culture" has done to the likes of Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie? Or the orgy of violence let loose causing loss of innocent lives and to private/public property in various parts of the country following publication of some Danish cartoonist outside India or hanging of Saddam Hussain in Iraq – an act in which "our culture" had no direct or indirect role to play?
It is a virtue to be liberal and condescending; it is a sin to be one-eyed and partial to deliberately gloat over the other side of reality! ***
Myth of his innocence
Reality of his wrongs
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Words: 700
On April 7 the Indian Express published an interview with famous artist Satish Gujaral in which he said that Mr. M. F. Hussain's exile "makes me ashamed of my own culture…the mob culture" and that" we have made such a great man live abroad."
Such utterances just confuse the people evading the real issue. These deprive the people from having a comprehensive and indepth look at the issues involved from every angle. We do drum about "our culture" but ignore that it also that teaches us to introspect on our own conduct before raising an accusing finger on the other. It is the same very "culture" that teaches us only to respect and not to offend others' sentiments. Mr. Gujaral seems to be ignoring "our culture" when he calls Mr Hussain "a great man" who has the audacity to injure, without provocation, the sentiments of crores of his countrymen.
If Mr. Hussain, as he and his supporters claim, has not done anything wrong then why is he afraid of returning to his country? Never has any government declined to provide him adequate security. But it will be expecting to much if they expect the government to grant him blanket immunity from any criminal offence he may or may not have committed. No government worth its name can do that in a democracy. He seems to be afraid to return because of a sense of guilt created by his own deeds and not because of "our culture". Everybody knows that to hurt somebody’s or some section of society’s faith and religious sentiments is an offence -- criminal, social and ethical. If one poses to be brave to stand by his commitments and principles, he should equally be bold to face the consequences.
Neither Mr. Hussain himself nor his protagonists explain why has he availed himself of his democratic right to freedom of expression only with Hindu goddesses and not taken the same liberty with holy men of his own creed?
If “he is a prime target precisely because he is a Muslim”, as some allege, then it can, inversely, also mean that he exercised his license with Hindu gods and goddesses “precisely because he is a Muslim”. Had the liberal and ‘secular’ Mr. Hussain painted in the same fashion somebody belonging to his own religion, or put the caption as “My Mother Durga”, or “My Mother Saraswati” or “My Mother Bharatmata” on the nude photographs, perhaps, he would have blunt the sharpness of the tongue and logic of his critics and detractors.
Mr. Hussain is, no doubt, a great painter but, at the same time, we have yet to know of a great painter, like him, who has painted his mother in the nude.
It is great human weakness and reality that everybody wishes to flirt with or throw amorous glances over someone else’s wife, sister and mother. One wishes to draw vicarious pleasure by seeing them in the nude. But when it comes to our own wife, mother or sister, we would wish to gouge the eyes of the culprit; it could lead to a scuffle and a murder even.
Arundhati Roys, Nandita Dasses, and a horde of well-known writers and artists/artistes throng the streets in support of Mr. Hussain's freedom. Yet, they have never publicly declared that they would appreciate with the same sense of glee and pride their own or of any member of their own family's nude paintings by a ‘great’ artist like Mr. Hussain. They need to do that, otherwise they will only stand exposed as hypocrites who have one standard for others and quite the opposite for themselves.
Do we need to remind what "our culture….mob culture" has done to the likes of Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie? Or the orgy of violence let loose causing loss of innocent lives and to private/public property in various parts of the country following publication of some Danish cartoonist outside India or hanging of Saddam Hussain in Iraq – an act in which "our culture" had no direct or indirect role to play?
It is a virtue to be liberal and condescending; it is a sin to be one-eyed and partial to deliberately gloat over the other side of reality! ***
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Needlepoint: The Enigma that is Delimitation
The Enigma that is Delimitation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
At the height of controversy over delimitation of constituencies in Himachal Pradesh, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission in 2002 declared: He will go by the convenience of the public and not by that of the politicians. But actually, with the Government of India now deciding to the accept the report of Delimitation Commission for Himachal along with other States where election process has already been completed, the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission have in fact achieved exactly the reverse and ignored the "convenience of the public".
In 2002, the Delimitation Commission was trying to run against time to complete the process in time for the HP assembly elections then due in February 2003. But for some reason or the other, this could not be done and the elections were held as per the old delimitation. But it was then thought that the process of delimitation would be completed well before next elections due in February 2008 (though held in December 2007) to hold elections as per the new recommendations.
It is worth mentioning that although the report of the Delimitation Commission was notified by the HP Government as back as January 2007, yet in the elections held after 11 months in December 2007, the Report was totally ignored.
The elections to Gujarat assembly in December 2007 too were held according to the old delimitation. So about the States of Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya going to the polls in March this year. In Karnataka elections due in May 2008 the report of the Delimitation Commission is again likely to be ignored.
In all fairness, the elections to every State assembly should be held as per the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission to cater to the "convenience of the public" instead of creating practical problems for them later on.
The elections held as per the old system have created a very anomalous situation, at least for the people who voted in the elections concluded less than a month ago in the States of Himachal and Gujarat, and so will they in the three North-eastern States.
Being more acquainted with the ground realities in Himachal, I would like to concentrate more on the situation that has developed in this State. The situation in other States can be no different.
Not the one they voted
The kanungo circle being the unit for re-drawl of constituencies, the boundaries of almost every constituency stand altered. Consequently, the persons whom people voted in the last elections are no longer their representatives and the one they did not vote are to be their 'elected' representatives. In many cases they may have voted for a person who belongs to some other party and won, but in the newly drawn constituency, the person may belong to a different party. The elected 'representative' too may not give to them that much care and attention because they were not the people instrumental in his victory.
No MLA to represent
A new assembly constituency of Manali has been added to the Kullu district increasing the number of its MLAs to four from the existing three. The voters of the newly created constituency of Manali have now been left high and dry with nobody to represent them in the House because their area falls in the constituency of none of the three individuals who won the election. The latter will now only concentrate on the areas from where they have to seek re-election next time.
No constituency to represent
The number of assembly constituencies in Kangra, the biggest district of the State which sends almost one-fourth of MLAs (16 in a house of 68) has been reduced to 15. The Thural constituency, which the incumbent Irrigation & Public Health Minister Mr. Ravinder Singh Ravi has been representing and won for the fourth time consecutively, has been obliterated and he is left with no area to represent, his present area having been fragmented and merged with other adjoining constituencies.
Nowhere to go
The number of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes has been increased by one, from the present 16 to 17 (one-fourth of the House). Unreserved constituencies of Chintpurni (Una), Baijnath (Kangra), Rohroo (Shimla) and Solan have been reserved for scheduled castes and the present reserved constituencies of Gagret (Una), Pragpur (Kangra) and Kasumpati (Shimla) have been de-reserved. Consequently, the MLAs elected only a month back, including former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh (Rohroo) and Health Minister Dr. Rajeev Bindal (Solan), have been left high dry with no areas to contest next time. Mr Virbhadra Singh may opt from some other constituency in Shimla district, but the fate of the remaining three is doomed.
As a result of this delimitation, the people inhabiting these newly reserved and de-reserved seven constituencies will suffer because the incumbent representatives will lose interest in nursing the areas that voted for them because they have not to seek votes from these constituencies for at least three decades hence when another delimitation of constituencies may take place. The last delimitation took place in 1972.
The only redeeming feature will be that the next Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will be held as per the newly redrawn parliamentary constituencies. Although the four parliamentary constituencies too stand redrawn, yet the people will have the opportunity to vote for an individual and a political party of their choice under the new set up. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
At the height of controversy over delimitation of constituencies in Himachal Pradesh, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission in 2002 declared: He will go by the convenience of the public and not by that of the politicians. But actually, with the Government of India now deciding to the accept the report of Delimitation Commission for Himachal along with other States where election process has already been completed, the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission have in fact achieved exactly the reverse and ignored the "convenience of the public".
In 2002, the Delimitation Commission was trying to run against time to complete the process in time for the HP assembly elections then due in February 2003. But for some reason or the other, this could not be done and the elections were held as per the old delimitation. But it was then thought that the process of delimitation would be completed well before next elections due in February 2008 (though held in December 2007) to hold elections as per the new recommendations.
It is worth mentioning that although the report of the Delimitation Commission was notified by the HP Government as back as January 2007, yet in the elections held after 11 months in December 2007, the Report was totally ignored.
The elections to Gujarat assembly in December 2007 too were held according to the old delimitation. So about the States of Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya going to the polls in March this year. In Karnataka elections due in May 2008 the report of the Delimitation Commission is again likely to be ignored.
In all fairness, the elections to every State assembly should be held as per the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission to cater to the "convenience of the public" instead of creating practical problems for them later on.
The elections held as per the old system have created a very anomalous situation, at least for the people who voted in the elections concluded less than a month ago in the States of Himachal and Gujarat, and so will they in the three North-eastern States.
Being more acquainted with the ground realities in Himachal, I would like to concentrate more on the situation that has developed in this State. The situation in other States can be no different.
Not the one they voted
The kanungo circle being the unit for re-drawl of constituencies, the boundaries of almost every constituency stand altered. Consequently, the persons whom people voted in the last elections are no longer their representatives and the one they did not vote are to be their 'elected' representatives. In many cases they may have voted for a person who belongs to some other party and won, but in the newly drawn constituency, the person may belong to a different party. The elected 'representative' too may not give to them that much care and attention because they were not the people instrumental in his victory.
No MLA to represent
A new assembly constituency of Manali has been added to the Kullu district increasing the number of its MLAs to four from the existing three. The voters of the newly created constituency of Manali have now been left high and dry with nobody to represent them in the House because their area falls in the constituency of none of the three individuals who won the election. The latter will now only concentrate on the areas from where they have to seek re-election next time.
No constituency to represent
The number of assembly constituencies in Kangra, the biggest district of the State which sends almost one-fourth of MLAs (16 in a house of 68) has been reduced to 15. The Thural constituency, which the incumbent Irrigation & Public Health Minister Mr. Ravinder Singh Ravi has been representing and won for the fourth time consecutively, has been obliterated and he is left with no area to represent, his present area having been fragmented and merged with other adjoining constituencies.
Nowhere to go
The number of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes has been increased by one, from the present 16 to 17 (one-fourth of the House). Unreserved constituencies of Chintpurni (Una), Baijnath (Kangra), Rohroo (Shimla) and Solan have been reserved for scheduled castes and the present reserved constituencies of Gagret (Una), Pragpur (Kangra) and Kasumpati (Shimla) have been de-reserved. Consequently, the MLAs elected only a month back, including former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh (Rohroo) and Health Minister Dr. Rajeev Bindal (Solan), have been left high dry with no areas to contest next time. Mr Virbhadra Singh may opt from some other constituency in Shimla district, but the fate of the remaining three is doomed.
As a result of this delimitation, the people inhabiting these newly reserved and de-reserved seven constituencies will suffer because the incumbent representatives will lose interest in nursing the areas that voted for them because they have not to seek votes from these constituencies for at least three decades hence when another delimitation of constituencies may take place. The last delimitation took place in 1972.
The only redeeming feature will be that the next Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will be held as per the newly redrawn parliamentary constituencies. Although the four parliamentary constituencies too stand redrawn, yet the people will have the opportunity to vote for an individual and a political party of their choice under the new set up. ***
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Needlepoint: Crackers -- 'Communal' and 'secular'
The crackers – ‘communal’ and ‘secular’
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
After reading what I am writing will make me end up as an orthodox, rank communalist in the eyes of our self-proclaimed secularists, liberal intelligentsia who claim for themselves the exclusive, unchallenged intellectual property right and trademark on ‘secularism’ and think they can sell anything in their brand ‘secular’.
But I, too, do have the freedom of expression on what I see, what I think and what I believe. Others can contradict me, condemn me but only with the force of logic and argument and not by the shrill their words can emit.
Like crores of my brethren all over the country in cities, towns, and villages, I am an orthodox person who does not wish to be deprived of his peaceful sleep even on the New Year eve. I don’t indulge in an orgy of drinking and dancing with other’s wives and women, hug them and touch them in the name of wishing them a very affectionate, a very happy, sweet, loving New Year.
December 31 has come to be celebrated as the New Year Eve, though the fact remains that hardly one percent of our population, mostly in metros and big cities, has come to know of it or celebrate it because they have the money to spare and splurge. If government were to order the bills that night to be paid only through cheques, debit and credit cards, I am sure, it will collect more income tax and other revenues. But there is another side of the story. The celebrations will then lose the lavishness and the sheen. It is the black money that thrives that day and drives the mirth and festivities.
As the zero hour struck on December 31st night, I was startled out of my slumber by the sound and fury of crackers that continued for more than half an hour in full fury and, later, intermittently for about two hours.
It reminded me of the court orders banning bursting of crackers after 10 at night because it created noise and environmental pollution as it also disturbed the peace of mind of many a great gentlemen.
When more than 80 percent of the population in the country – young and old, men and women, rich and poor—are celebrating Diwali, there is a ban on crackers after 10 PM but not when only a minuscule minority of only rich elite is doing.
Does it then mean that crackers spread pollution -- noise and environmental- only when burst on Diwali day and not on December 31st and New Year Day? Are the crackers on Diwali ‘communal’ only because these have something to do with ‘Hindus’ and on December 31st ‘secular’ because the celebration has nothing to do with Hindu ethos?
I noticed signboards at many places, including at the India Gate circle in New Delhi warning us: “Don’t mix drinking with driving.” It is a crime. So tell our police, law enforcing agencies and court. But how many drivers were held up by police on 31st December night? Practically none. Had the police done its duty it could hardly come across a single vehicle driver, whether owner or a chauffer, the occupants included, without a heavy dose of alcohol and intoxication. Why should they not be? They had gone out for merry-making and not to visit a place of worship to seek spiritual blessings.
How could the poor police perform its duty and enforce law? It could do, but only at its own peril. If it did stretch its hand of law, who knows which big-big or his wards were his booty. But the policemen preferred to keep their eyes shut to the infringements of law before their very own eyes, pretending not to have seen it and therefore did not have to act. Their duty ended putting signboard warning the violators. It allowed everyone to have a free for all. Can any sane people even think that on 31st December night not a single person out on merrymaking drove his vehicle without having gulped a few pegs of wine at that late hour?
When there is traffic jam or hazard because of a political or religious procession much is talked and written about. But when vehicular traffic to Connaught Place in New Delhi was totally prohibited on New Year Eve, people coming to Delhi from outside who had to pass nearby Connaught Place were put to great inconvenience. No taxi or auto-rickshaw was willing to go to that area. How many people failed to catch their trains from New Delhi railway station situated adjoining Connaught Place, nobody knows? Nobody wrote; nobody cared. Everybody was high in spirits reporting the merry making going on at Connaught Place. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
After reading what I am writing will make me end up as an orthodox, rank communalist in the eyes of our self-proclaimed secularists, liberal intelligentsia who claim for themselves the exclusive, unchallenged intellectual property right and trademark on ‘secularism’ and think they can sell anything in their brand ‘secular’.
But I, too, do have the freedom of expression on what I see, what I think and what I believe. Others can contradict me, condemn me but only with the force of logic and argument and not by the shrill their words can emit.
Like crores of my brethren all over the country in cities, towns, and villages, I am an orthodox person who does not wish to be deprived of his peaceful sleep even on the New Year eve. I don’t indulge in an orgy of drinking and dancing with other’s wives and women, hug them and touch them in the name of wishing them a very affectionate, a very happy, sweet, loving New Year.
December 31 has come to be celebrated as the New Year Eve, though the fact remains that hardly one percent of our population, mostly in metros and big cities, has come to know of it or celebrate it because they have the money to spare and splurge. If government were to order the bills that night to be paid only through cheques, debit and credit cards, I am sure, it will collect more income tax and other revenues. But there is another side of the story. The celebrations will then lose the lavishness and the sheen. It is the black money that thrives that day and drives the mirth and festivities.
As the zero hour struck on December 31st night, I was startled out of my slumber by the sound and fury of crackers that continued for more than half an hour in full fury and, later, intermittently for about two hours.
It reminded me of the court orders banning bursting of crackers after 10 at night because it created noise and environmental pollution as it also disturbed the peace of mind of many a great gentlemen.
When more than 80 percent of the population in the country – young and old, men and women, rich and poor—are celebrating Diwali, there is a ban on crackers after 10 PM but not when only a minuscule minority of only rich elite is doing.
Does it then mean that crackers spread pollution -- noise and environmental- only when burst on Diwali day and not on December 31st and New Year Day? Are the crackers on Diwali ‘communal’ only because these have something to do with ‘Hindus’ and on December 31st ‘secular’ because the celebration has nothing to do with Hindu ethos?
I noticed signboards at many places, including at the India Gate circle in New Delhi warning us: “Don’t mix drinking with driving.” It is a crime. So tell our police, law enforcing agencies and court. But how many drivers were held up by police on 31st December night? Practically none. Had the police done its duty it could hardly come across a single vehicle driver, whether owner or a chauffer, the occupants included, without a heavy dose of alcohol and intoxication. Why should they not be? They had gone out for merry-making and not to visit a place of worship to seek spiritual blessings.
How could the poor police perform its duty and enforce law? It could do, but only at its own peril. If it did stretch its hand of law, who knows which big-big or his wards were his booty. But the policemen preferred to keep their eyes shut to the infringements of law before their very own eyes, pretending not to have seen it and therefore did not have to act. Their duty ended putting signboard warning the violators. It allowed everyone to have a free for all. Can any sane people even think that on 31st December night not a single person out on merrymaking drove his vehicle without having gulped a few pegs of wine at that late hour?
When there is traffic jam or hazard because of a political or religious procession much is talked and written about. But when vehicular traffic to Connaught Place in New Delhi was totally prohibited on New Year Eve, people coming to Delhi from outside who had to pass nearby Connaught Place were put to great inconvenience. No taxi or auto-rickshaw was willing to go to that area. How many people failed to catch their trains from New Delhi railway station situated adjoining Connaught Place, nobody knows? Nobody wrote; nobody cared. Everybody was high in spirits reporting the merry making going on at Connaught Place. ***
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Himachal Assembly Elections 2007
NEEDLEPOINT: HIMACHAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
Facts more interesting, more enlightening
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The recent assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh have created history in more than one way. The facts that emerge are interesting and enlightening.
For the first time, on its own strength, BJP got absolute majority – 41 seats in a 68-member house (just 2 seats less than required for a 2/3rd majority, with two BJP rebels having already declared their support to Dhumal government).
In 1998 BJP did form government but it was in alliance with Himachal Vikas Congress (HVC).
BJP's percentage of vote share went up from 35.38 in 2003 to 43.78 in 2007 December – a jump of 8.40 percent. BJP this time had no alliance or seat adjustment at any level. Congress vote percentage went down from 41.00 percent in 2003 to 38.89.
In 2003 elections, HVC had contested independently and received 5.87 percent votes. On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, HVC merged itself with Congress. This means that Congress share of votes in 2007 went down by another 5.87% as compared to 2003.
In 1990 too, BJP had a majority but it was in alliance with Janta Dal then. BJP got 46 out of 51 contested. Out of 17 JD fought, it won 11. BJP percentage of votes then was 41.78.
Three times in the past Prem Kumar Dhumal was projected as chief ministerial candidate. Party won twice in 1998 and 2007.
Popularity, among voters, of Prem Kumar Dhumal is continuously on the rise since he first contested the assembly election from Bamson constituency while that of the Congress chief ministerial candidate Virbhadra Singh is on the downslide:
Lead with vote percentage
1998 2003 2007
P. K. Dhumal 8,828 15,698 26,007
(60.34%) (66.71%) (76.29%)
Virbhadra Singh 26,148 16,289 14,137
(80.92%) (67.94%) (60.00%)
On the contrary, BJP candidate, Khushi Ram Balnatah maintains his gain each election at the cost of Virbhadra Singh
Khushi Ram Balnatah 18.02% 31.93% 32.13%
If it was a BJP candidate P.K. Dhumal who won by the highest margin, it again was the BJP candidate Tulsi Ram, who won the Pangi-Bharmaur seat with the lowest margin of 16 votes.
Sonia-Rahul flop
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed election rallies at Palampur and Hamirpur and Congress lost at both the places.
Rahul Gandhi had his much hyped road show only in Kullu district and Congress lost all the three assembly seats for the first time.
Sonia protégé loses
Being a Sonia protégé failed to fetch victory for her special nominee, Parkash Chand, son of a person working in her household. Congress suffered the ignominy of losing the security deposit even. She had denied the ticket to sitting Congress MLA and Deputy Speaker Dharampal.
Five Congress nominees forfeited their security deposit as against 3 of BJP.
It is for the first time that BJP has won all the five seats in Solan district and all the three seats in Kullu district.
Both BJP and Congress had fielded six women each. Four women from BJP and only one from Congress could make it to the State assembly.
BJP creates history
BJP captured the so-far-invincible Congress forts in Jubbal-Kotkhai (Shimla), Kotkehloor (Bilaspur) and Kassauli (Solan). Jubbal-Kotkhai had throughout been a pocket borough of Congress veteran late Thakur Ram Lal who won it throughout. After his death, in 2003 elections his grandson romped home successful. As a Janta Dal candidate supported by BJP Thakur Ram Lal had even humbled Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in 1990 from this constituency.
It was another Ram Lal Thakur of Congress who was this time defeated by BJP's Randhir Sharma for the first time in Kotkehloor.
Except for the lone instance of Janata Party in 1977, BJP has won, for the first time, the Dharampur constituency in Mandi district when Mohinder Singh won it contesting as a BJP candidate this time
Myth smashed
In the election two myths were smashed: One, division between the 'old' and the 'new' areas that had bogged the State since Punjab areas merged with Himachal in 1966; two, that BJP was a party of the 'new' areas alone. BJP won more or less an equal victory in both regions. Out of 34 seats in 'old' areas, BJP won 17 (50 percent) and 24 out of the rest of 34.
Parliamentary constituency-wise too, there was more of uniformity and less of diversity. In Kangra parliamentary constituency BJP bagged 10 assembly seats, in Hamirpur 11, in Mandi 12 and in Shimla 8.
Veterans of battle
It is Congress candidate, Shri Gangu Ram Musafir who created history by winning his Pachhad assembly constituency consecutively for the 7th time.
I. D. Dhiman and Capt. Atma Ram, both of BJP and Harshvardhan Chauhan of Congress, have won their seats consecutively for the fifth time.
Shri Ravinder Singh Ravi (BJP) and Shri Kaul Singh Thakur (Congress) have scored their fourth consecutive victory.
Present State BJP President Jairam Thakur (Chachiot), Baldev Sharma (Nadaunta), Dr. Rajiv Bindal (Solan), Ramesh Dhwala (Jawalamukhi), Hari Narain Singh (Nalagarh) – all BJP -- and Smt. Vidya Stokes, Shri G. S. Bali, and Dr. Prem Singh (Renuka) – all Congress, have recorded their third victory in a row.
Ministers lick defeat
More than half of the Congress cabinet lost. 5 out of 10 ministers were defeated. One did not fight, but his son contested and lost. One resigned about one month before the announcement of election schedule. One minister was denied nomination. Two senior ministers, Mrs. Vidya Stokes (Kumarsain) and Thakur Kaul Singh (Darang) somehow managed to escape the BJP onslaught retaining their seats by very narrow margins of 1250 and 1809 votes, respectively.
Four other Congress ministers, who were dropped from Cabinet for one reason or the other, were dumped by the electorate – Shri Brij Bihari Lal Butail (Palampur), Mrs. Asha Kumari (Banikhet), Mrs. Chandresh Kumari (Dharmsala) and the last of all, Major Vijai Singh Mankotia who two months back left Congress and contested as BSP's chief ministerial candidate.
BSP opens account
BSP did succeed in opening its account first time in Himachal from Kangra, but 59 of its candidates lost security deposit.
Rest of the national parties failed to make their presence felt. CPM was runner-up only in Shimla constituency. In rest of the State CPM, CPI, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party and Samajwadi Party did contest some seats but only to lose their security deposit.
Leader in Distress
Whenever Congress wins majority, the leader of the Congress Legislature Party has been Shri Virbhadra Singh, but whenever it loses majority as it did in 1990 and now in 2007, it is Smt. Vidya Stokes who is elected the leader.
***
Facts more interesting, more enlightening
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The recent assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh have created history in more than one way. The facts that emerge are interesting and enlightening.
For the first time, on its own strength, BJP got absolute majority – 41 seats in a 68-member house (just 2 seats less than required for a 2/3rd majority, with two BJP rebels having already declared their support to Dhumal government).
In 1998 BJP did form government but it was in alliance with Himachal Vikas Congress (HVC).
BJP's percentage of vote share went up from 35.38 in 2003 to 43.78 in 2007 December – a jump of 8.40 percent. BJP this time had no alliance or seat adjustment at any level. Congress vote percentage went down from 41.00 percent in 2003 to 38.89.
In 2003 elections, HVC had contested independently and received 5.87 percent votes. On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, HVC merged itself with Congress. This means that Congress share of votes in 2007 went down by another 5.87% as compared to 2003.
In 1990 too, BJP had a majority but it was in alliance with Janta Dal then. BJP got 46 out of 51 contested. Out of 17 JD fought, it won 11. BJP percentage of votes then was 41.78.
Three times in the past Prem Kumar Dhumal was projected as chief ministerial candidate. Party won twice in 1998 and 2007.
Popularity, among voters, of Prem Kumar Dhumal is continuously on the rise since he first contested the assembly election from Bamson constituency while that of the Congress chief ministerial candidate Virbhadra Singh is on the downslide:
Lead with vote percentage
1998 2003 2007
P. K. Dhumal 8,828 15,698 26,007
(60.34%) (66.71%) (76.29%)
Virbhadra Singh 26,148 16,289 14,137
(80.92%) (67.94%) (60.00%)
On the contrary, BJP candidate, Khushi Ram Balnatah maintains his gain each election at the cost of Virbhadra Singh
Khushi Ram Balnatah 18.02% 31.93% 32.13%
If it was a BJP candidate P.K. Dhumal who won by the highest margin, it again was the BJP candidate Tulsi Ram, who won the Pangi-Bharmaur seat with the lowest margin of 16 votes.
Sonia-Rahul flop
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed election rallies at Palampur and Hamirpur and Congress lost at both the places.
Rahul Gandhi had his much hyped road show only in Kullu district and Congress lost all the three assembly seats for the first time.
Sonia protégé loses
Being a Sonia protégé failed to fetch victory for her special nominee, Parkash Chand, son of a person working in her household. Congress suffered the ignominy of losing the security deposit even. She had denied the ticket to sitting Congress MLA and Deputy Speaker Dharampal.
Five Congress nominees forfeited their security deposit as against 3 of BJP.
It is for the first time that BJP has won all the five seats in Solan district and all the three seats in Kullu district.
Both BJP and Congress had fielded six women each. Four women from BJP and only one from Congress could make it to the State assembly.
BJP creates history
BJP captured the so-far-invincible Congress forts in Jubbal-Kotkhai (Shimla), Kotkehloor (Bilaspur) and Kassauli (Solan). Jubbal-Kotkhai had throughout been a pocket borough of Congress veteran late Thakur Ram Lal who won it throughout. After his death, in 2003 elections his grandson romped home successful. As a Janta Dal candidate supported by BJP Thakur Ram Lal had even humbled Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in 1990 from this constituency.
It was another Ram Lal Thakur of Congress who was this time defeated by BJP's Randhir Sharma for the first time in Kotkehloor.
Except for the lone instance of Janata Party in 1977, BJP has won, for the first time, the Dharampur constituency in Mandi district when Mohinder Singh won it contesting as a BJP candidate this time
Myth smashed
In the election two myths were smashed: One, division between the 'old' and the 'new' areas that had bogged the State since Punjab areas merged with Himachal in 1966; two, that BJP was a party of the 'new' areas alone. BJP won more or less an equal victory in both regions. Out of 34 seats in 'old' areas, BJP won 17 (50 percent) and 24 out of the rest of 34.
Parliamentary constituency-wise too, there was more of uniformity and less of diversity. In Kangra parliamentary constituency BJP bagged 10 assembly seats, in Hamirpur 11, in Mandi 12 and in Shimla 8.
Veterans of battle
It is Congress candidate, Shri Gangu Ram Musafir who created history by winning his Pachhad assembly constituency consecutively for the 7th time.
I. D. Dhiman and Capt. Atma Ram, both of BJP and Harshvardhan Chauhan of Congress, have won their seats consecutively for the fifth time.
Shri Ravinder Singh Ravi (BJP) and Shri Kaul Singh Thakur (Congress) have scored their fourth consecutive victory.
Present State BJP President Jairam Thakur (Chachiot), Baldev Sharma (Nadaunta), Dr. Rajiv Bindal (Solan), Ramesh Dhwala (Jawalamukhi), Hari Narain Singh (Nalagarh) – all BJP -- and Smt. Vidya Stokes, Shri G. S. Bali, and Dr. Prem Singh (Renuka) – all Congress, have recorded their third victory in a row.
Ministers lick defeat
More than half of the Congress cabinet lost. 5 out of 10 ministers were defeated. One did not fight, but his son contested and lost. One resigned about one month before the announcement of election schedule. One minister was denied nomination. Two senior ministers, Mrs. Vidya Stokes (Kumarsain) and Thakur Kaul Singh (Darang) somehow managed to escape the BJP onslaught retaining their seats by very narrow margins of 1250 and 1809 votes, respectively.
Four other Congress ministers, who were dropped from Cabinet for one reason or the other, were dumped by the electorate – Shri Brij Bihari Lal Butail (Palampur), Mrs. Asha Kumari (Banikhet), Mrs. Chandresh Kumari (Dharmsala) and the last of all, Major Vijai Singh Mankotia who two months back left Congress and contested as BSP's chief ministerial candidate.
BSP opens account
BSP did succeed in opening its account first time in Himachal from Kangra, but 59 of its candidates lost security deposit.
Rest of the national parties failed to make their presence felt. CPM was runner-up only in Shimla constituency. In rest of the State CPM, CPI, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party and Samajwadi Party did contest some seats but only to lose their security deposit.
Leader in Distress
Whenever Congress wins majority, the leader of the Congress Legislature Party has been Shri Virbhadra Singh, but whenever it loses majority as it did in 1990 and now in 2007, it is Smt. Vidya Stokes who is elected the leader.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
